BRITAIN'S OWN PEARL HARBOUR ?

Absolutely.

The article suggests that this action stymied a successful defence of Singapore, and thereby threatened the defence of Australia et all in the region.

I am not well versed in that area of operations, but others may be in position to comment on this aspect of importance.
 
I was stationed in Singapore and on occasions "Went up country." The Japanese were trained and equipped for jungle warfare, the British weren't. Although issued with a good rifle, the rest of the British equipment was as usual substandard. Leather boots rotted and fell apart, uniforms such as the KD shorts were completely unsuited for the environment.
 
Personally I do not think a successful defence of Singapore was ever a possibility given the lack of vision that went into preparing Singapore's defences and once the water supply had been taken out it really was only a matter of time before it surrendered with or without the Battleships being there.

As for Australia and New Zealand being threatened I really don't think that was ever the case as the Japanese never had the man power to conquer the region and after Midway they never had the naval power to support or supply such large long range actions which is why I suspect there were never any serious plans drawn up to attack Australia.

In my opinion the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse were nothing more than text book examples of underestimating your enemy and over estimating your own ability something that the Allies seemed determined to do right from the start.
 
Last edited:
MontyB said:
In my opinion the loss of the Prince of Wales and Repulse were nothing more than text book examples of underestimating your enemy and over estimating your own ability something that the Allies seemed determined to do right from the start.
Click to expand...

Thank you guys for the input, I am unfamiliar with this campaign as far as any degree of accuracy is concerned.

Purely out of interest, regarding the above, are you referring to this theatre of war, or to the war generally?
 
The British expected the 2 ships to deter or smash an invasion attempt. Considering they had only 4 Destroyers & how effective the Japanese torpedos were that probably would have ended badly even if the air strike hadn't sunk them. The Japanese Army had bicycles that provided excellent transportation on the roads in Malaya. There were some units (Australian?) with submachine guns that did a good job bushwacking some of the bicycle groups, but too few to make a diffrence. Both the British & US had a definite racist view that the Japs were inferior, they couldn't be good pilots because thay couldn't see out of those little slant eyes, ect. Sounds outragious today, but typical back then.
 
Del Boy said:
Thank you guys for the input, I am unfamiliar with this campaign as far as any degree of accuracy is concerned.

Purely out of interest, regarding the above, are you referring to this theatre of war, or to the war generally?
Click to expand...

Sorry I am referring to the SE Asian/Pacific theatre, the general allied view of the Japanese solider showed an appalling lack of knowledge and led much of the Japanese success in the early stages of the war.

The reality is that Singapore should have been abandoned once it became clear the Japanese were going to cut it off from the mainland.
 
MontyB said:
The reality is that Singapore should have been abandoned once it became clear the Japanese were going to ATTACK it from the mainland.
Click to expand...
Slight edit! Someone quiped that the Singapore defences were like building a Battleship w/o a bottom.
 
Right - my childhood memories click in now at your references to the under-estimation of the Japanese soldier - descriptions of little bandy guys with bad eyes (spectacles) - who in fact turned out to fearsome jungle fighters with fanatical determination and fierce discipline. I imagine now that the truth was probably somewhere in between; however, by the end of the war I came away with a very real understanding of the awful reputation they earned throughout the campaign for what we considered uncivilised behaviour, first- hand directly from victims.
 
George said:
Slight edit! Someone quiped that the Singapore defences were like building a Battleship w/o a bottom.
Click to expand...

Yeah that is probably a more accurate statement, Singapore was only defensible if the attack came by sea once that was no longer the case they should have abandoned it.
 
Percival was hauled over the coals for not preparing proper defences by Wavell. Percivals excuse was that he didn't want to lower morale and cause alarm among the civil population.

I agree that Singapore could not hold out even with the best static defence system in the world, Singapore's water was piped across from the Malay mainland, once this had been cut off when the causeway was demolished and the pumping stations at the reservoir's were destroyed, Singapore was finished.
 
BritinAfrica said:
Percival was hauled over the coals for not preparing proper defences by Wavell. Percivals excuse was that he didn't want to lower morale and cause alarm among the civil population.
Click to expand...
General Percival has, with some justification, been made the scapegoat of the Singapore disaster. Yet the man was not a coward, and had won the MC and DSO in the battlefields of France in the First World War. Perhaps that was his main failing: fighting a mobile battle of the Second World War with the trench-bound mentality of the First.
 
42RM said:
General Percival has, with some justification, been made the scapegoat of the Singapore disaster. Yet the man was not a coward, and had won the MC and DSO in the battlefields of France in the First World War. Perhaps that was his main failing: fighting a mobile battle of the Second World War with the trench-bound mentality of the First.
Click to expand...

I agree that he wasn't a coward, but as Major General Thompson (Falklands Island fame) stated along with B.L. Montgomery (monty) they both (more or less stated) "Too many General Officers and Commanding Officers were promoted beyond their capabilities."

However, having served in the region he was in effect fighting a losing battle. On the north side of the Island there were (unless its changed since I was there) a number of small inlets that would allow invading Japanese to land sizeable forces and almost impossible to defend. The Japanese troops advanced towards RAF Tengah, as the Japanese flooded over the northern part of the airfield the Station Commander shot himself.

The whole of the Far East was a disaster, lack of proper equipment and proper training. It wasn't called the "Forgotten Army" for nothing.
 
Last edited:
He had done very well as chief of staff to the British first Corps in France in 1940, to the point of being made the deputy CIGS for a while, and was showing potential as the commander of a division in a Britain facing German invasion. Perhaps if he had been given a chance to lead that division into combat under the command of a good Corps or Army Commander, he might have developed the ability to have led higher formations later in the war. Unfortunately he was thrown unprepared into a situation beyond his experience, or his ability to adapt.
 
If anyone is to blame for the debacle in the Far East, its the successive British governments who failed to equip the Navy, Army and Air Force with modern up to date equipment.

By the time the British government realised they were on a sticky wicket in the Far East, it was too late.
 
I disagree that Singapore couldn't be defended. If I'm not mistaken the small attacking Japanese force was exhausted and afraid they couldn't achieve victory in the specified time, that's why their commander started negotiations and bluffed his way in. If Percival would have known this he wouldn't have surrendered.

About the ships. I don't think the RAF could have prevented the sinking. The battle just would have lasted longer but the end result the same. The allies were hugely overconfident and not at all prepared for war with an enemy that was. The Americans thought their ships were safe because of the torpedo nets at PH. It turned out to be a terruble mistake.
The first battles in WWII proved the battleships were doomed just as now, IMHO, the AC's are doomed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top